pacino wrote:JUburton wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html
i feel like this book is actually bad and would have been 100% different had 100k people not voted one way in 3 states. it seems like the kind of thing where they got tons of quotes throughout the process, then picked which ones to use after nov 8 set the narrative.
not saying the hillary campaign didnt make mistakes. obviously it did but this kinda seems like a cash grab.
yeah, that's how campaign books work. you get all you can then create the narrative after it happens. they're pretty stupid. Game Change was the stupidest of them all.
her actions before the campaign (setting up a private email server, becoming entangled in the Clinton Foundation, giving speeches to Wall Street banks) “hamstrung her own chances so badly that she couldn’t recover,” ensuring that she could not “cast herself as anything but a lifelong insider when so much of the country had lost faith in its institutions.”
A quote like this does seem like they want to have it both ways. Either she was such a flawed candidate going in, with so many negatives (justified or not), that winning an election was an uphill battle from the beginning, or she completely had it in her grasp and the tactical errors noted elsewhere in the review sabotaged what should have been an overwhelming and clear cut victory. I don't see how she can be nearly completely doomed from the start and an overwhelming favorite who blew her advantage. I tend to lean toward the prior, and find it mind boggling that the Democratic Party establishment got so completely behind her, as if making sure they were "fair" to her was more important than winning.
